Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The new name for The Public Option of Health Care Reform is the Consumer Option. This is a smart move. It is one thing to undo the public; but, one can not touch the consumer. People do not identify with the public in as much the powerful consumer. Do note the change in message.

October 27, 2009

HomeArchivesRSS SyndicationMerchandiseDonationsContactAboutSearch

« NY23 now a litmus test for conservatives | Blog Home Page | Graph of the Day for October 27, 2009 » Email Friend | Print Article | 34 Comments | Share October 27, 2009 Pelosi wants to 'rename' the public optionRick Moran

What is it about liberals that they think they have to fool people into supporting them?

Run as a nice, safe moderate only to become screaming leftists once in office. It really shows they have no confidence that the substance of their ideas can stand scrutiny much less win out in a fair fight with the right.

The latest manifestation of this is Nancy Pelosi suggesting that we "rename" the public option. Matt Sedensky of the Seattle Times notes:

A government-sponsored "public option" for health care lives, though it may be more attractive to skeptics if it goes by a different moniker, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as "the consumer option." Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi's side and used the term "competitive option."

Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public - or consumers or competitors.

"You'll hear everyone say, 'There's got to be a better name for this,'" Pelosi said. "When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars."

Does "everyone" really say 'there's got to be a better name for this?' Not that I've heard. We may assume then, that it is liberals who want a "better" name for a public option that will indeed be paid for with public dollars if you are honest enough to include subsidies paid for by tax payers in your definition of "public dollars."

Perhaps Pelosi doesn't see taxpayer dollars as public money. Regardless, I think the old saw about dressing a pig in a prom dress will still leave you with a well dressed porcine is apt here. Even if you put a goat's head on the pig, you won't change its nature.

Posted at 09:37 AM | Email | Permalink | 34 Comments | Share Recent Articles•Is Barack Obama 'too nice' for his own good?•Does the Supreme Court Still Sit?•Signing away sovereignty•Who Wants War with Iran?•The Race Against Nothing•Reporters Without Borders: Bordering on Insanity?•Lies, damn lies, and opinion polls•Stimulate What is Needed•Obama's True Lies•Losing IsraelBlog Posts•Graph of the Day for October 27, 2009•Pelosi wants to 'rename' the public option•NY23 now a litmus test for conservatives•Hey J-Street: Your anti-Israel bias is showing•The whiff of fascism becomes a stench•Ratings for Fox New up 10% since attacks by Obama•The coming public pension nightmare•Say it ain't so, Joe.•Let Them Eat Veal•NYT assigns equal blame to Israel for Arab riotsMonthly Archives•October 2009•September 2009•August 2009•July 2009•More...

One of six American live in poverty, a new report finds, leading to the implication that the US poverty level is even worse than first believed.

The National Academy of Science (NAS) formula calculates the poverty rate to be at 15.8 percent, or nearly 1 in 6 Americans, according to new estimates released this week. That's higher than the 13.2 percent, or 39.8 million, figure made available recently under the original US government formula, the Associated Press reports.

That government formula was created in 1955 and does not factor in the rising costs of medical care, transportation, child care or the geographical variations of living. Nor does it consider the non-cash governmental aid when calculating income.

According to the revised NAS formula, nearly 18.7 percent of Americans, 65 and older, or nearly 7.1 million, live in poverty, compared to the 9.7 percent, or 3.7 million figure, under the traditional formula. Approximately 14.3 percent of people 18 to 64, or 27 million, live in poverty in the US, compared to 11.7 percent under the traditional calculations. Many of the new poor are the low-income, working people with transportation and child-care costs.

Food stamp assistance is currently at an all-time high of about 36 million.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Now that President Obama has been awarded The Nobel Peace Prize, should we pull out of all wars? I wonder why we are there? The only thing there are mountains and opium.

War is so unnecessary. We are spending so much energy and resources there without anything in return. The world needs peace.

Why not bring all our soldiers but home and build new schools, computers and health centers? The world needs jobs. People are just sitting around waiting for something to happen. Out taxes are too high. If you do have a job, we only get about 68% of our pay.

In closing, there is too much money wasted on war. The world has a job to do. War is not the answer. Greed has played a role in this recession, the other factor is war. I hope we can expand world wide educational program tied to jobs. The full educational/employment act can make the world a better place. This is the real prize.

Monday, October 5, 2009

The hot issue this weekend focused on Rio winning The Olympics and Chicago losing. The real issue is President Obama made a real pitch for for the USA and lost in the first round.

There are so many issues in the world that deserve our attention. Jobs are being lost at nearly ten percent. The economy is still having problems for the average family, and we are still facing war in two major areas. The Olympics are just games that turn into a political football contest.

Life is full of winners and losers. Regrettably, we have a lot more losers in the world. The future if anything will become more competitive. People will fight more over less. I only hope that fairness can have its day. We need a system that allows greater opportunity for all. Perhaps we will never see it, but let us hope for the children of the future.